Concern That Tactical Nuclear Use will Immediately Trigger Uncontrollable Strategic Response When Limits of Paranoia are Exceeded

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Oct 12, 2022 at 10:57

What was supposed to have been learned more than sixty years ago, and revisited in the eighties (Reagan era) has apparently been assessed (or is in the process of reassessment as this is being written) is that nuclear threats are not deterrent in nature when in the wrong hands. The last generation found this out (moslty by accident) when attempting to argue that nuclear parity might somehow be achieved if every one who could represent such a threat were sufficiently armed and the common understanding would be to never consider such use in the normal course of peacekeeping. The problem with that is none took 'seriously' just how that might work out. Case in point; which of anyone of us think that the Russian nuclear arsenal is for deterrent purposes? To the contrary, the Soviet mindset was only conventional since those who later assumed Party Power were not sufficiently convinced going nuclear would end well for Mother Russia.
This is not the current frame of reference in the Kremlin today. What is in sight is the next generation that does not hold to the old party thinking, especially if one recognizes that the old party lines werre weak, since they 'flinched' in the sixties and eighties: think of it in tis context: how does one expect respect if one has the power and does not make use of it. The reason America was respected is because it used the power.
Very, very few alive today fully realize just exactly what does that mean. Now it becomes psychological.
Of all the places on earth that have been devastated by the tragic catastrophic ravages of war (Dresden comes to mind), only two are existent that were subjected to the madness of science placed into the hands of the militarily charged political will of a government at war. When Japan was attacked by the American nuclear system, what was the reason for the release of such devastating energy? The reason given was in order to minimize greater loses had a full scale advance been authorized and the casualties of a conventional attack would be more significant. Does anyone else see where the Russian might be going with this?
Is this not 'taking it more seriously?'

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".